So? Do you think that within the withdrawal agreement there should be a passage of what the future relationship with the EU should be? Do you think your House of Commons could agree on anything?
The EU already pointed out what the future relationship with the EU could be:
Negotiations for both the WA and the future trade agreement needed to be run in parallel, as A50 Sec:2 say the withdrawal agreement has to take into account the future relationship, the backstop is actually designed to cede sovereignty to the EU., therefore it takes away the UK sovereign power to leave in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The WA cannot pass a sovereign parliment because our constitution prohibits bind our successor which in its current form the WA will do.
If the EU followed due process as per A50 Sec:2 the future relationship would have been settled and therefore the WA would no longer infringe A50 Sec:1
Mays red lines were perfectly feasible as if she had not deviated from the manifesto we were no longer going to be part of the CU/SM, as I have said before the EU played TM beautifully in creating division within the UK negotiations team, it also helps that TM really did not believe in what she was trying to achieve and follow her own parties manifesto
The UK needs to choose, not cherry pick, but choose. It is not the EU's fault that the UK is incapable to choose. Or indeed, you think the EU should roll over and just let the UK cherry pick and just through away everything the EU is based on. The UK will be worse off outside the EU, unless you believe in fairytailes that is an undesputed fact.
No we didn’t have to choose any of those agreements, but they could have been used as a template to the future agreement, what’s good for Canada or Sth Korea may not be suitable for the UK, it’s not up to parliment to make a suitable agreement, as each party within parliament party has there own policy on any different subject, it’s also up to the government if it does not have the numbers to pass legislation by themselves to bring the agreement before parliament to make sure it will pass the legislative process, by signing the agreement before she knew she could get it passed was a dereliction of duty before parliment, hence the situation we find ourselves in.
It is pointless because nobody will disagree with that, it has no meaning.
Just because you have no countenance to it dose not mean it has no meaning.
Uhmmmm, yes you might actually think that the EU must roll over to every whimp of the House of Commons and let the UK cherry pick, don't you.
Obviously you are lost on the meaning, following due process which is a fundamental position of the EU dosnt mean you have to roll over at the negotiations table, something TM fundamentally had forgotten
GFA is about open borders, won't you agree? If you have followed anything about this, you will see that people are against any phisical signs of a border, any phisical signs, even a camara (which isn't enough). If the two sides of the border have different trade regimes, there will be a phisical border, point, it is mendetory. If you do not grasp that concept than what is the point in discusising it?
The GFA is about the free passage of Irish citizens to move freely across the border, which has been in existence since the Irish become independent in 1922, there always had been a customs border of some description up until both nations joined the EEC, there is nothing in the GFA which states both sides have to be in the same regulatory agreement for trade, there will be no physical border or movement controls which stops Irish citizens from crossing.